|
Shawshank Redemption (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zany_dog |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
It's not bad for an overly sentimental, formulaic revenge story with little to no intellectually stimulating content. |
wow... could u be any more of a pretentious cock. :rolleyes:
anyways. good movie. probably the only great movie that tim robbins ever starred in. "get busy livin' or get busy dyin'" |
|
|
| Ry Diggs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Weekend at Bernies 2 > Weekend at Bernies
soooo... we can conclude that:
Weekend at Bernies 2 > Shawshank Redemption. |
HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA #1!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by zany_dog
wow... could u be any more of a pretentious cock. :rolleyes: |
I don't deny that the movie is entertaining. I enjoyed it myself. I just think it's overrated... Certainly wouldn't qualify as one of the best films of all time. I think it's a sentimental film that you turn your brain off to watch... there's nothing wrong with that per se - the movie business is about entertainment. But I just don't see anything in the film that would justify describing it as an example of truly great cinematic expression.
This is my opinion and it may well be wrong. If you think what I said was wrong rebut it with some logic. The first person to begin throwing around personal insults usually says more about himself than the target of his comments. |
|
|
| barosoap |
Great film, but the novella > the film.
It's one of four stories in Stephen King's "Different Seasons." What's interesting is they're all subtely linked to each other by a character or random detail. It's a quick easy read that is obviously more developed than the films. Two of the other stories have also been made into films: "Stand By Me" with River Phoenix was based on "The Body" and "Apt Pupil" |
|
|
| zany_dog |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I don't deny that the movie is entertaining. I enjoyed it myself. I just think it's overrated... Certainly wouldn't qualify as one of the best films of all time. I think it's a sentimental film that you turn your brain off to watch... there's nothing wrong with that per se - the movie business is about entertainment. But I just don't see anything in the film that would justify describing it as an example of truly great cinematic expression.
This is my opinion and it may well be wrong. If you think what I said was wrong rebut it with some logic. The first person to begin throwing around personal insults usually says more about himself than the target of his comments. |
i called you out because you state your opinion on the flick by saying "it's not bad" then you start bashing it in terms of whether it stimulates intellectual thought or not. who ing cares. it's entertainment. a movie doesn't need to have a load of abstract pictures put into it to be great. if it makes u feel good, it's good. simple as that. don't need to complicate it. |
|
|
| jdat |
| quote: | Originally posted by zany_dog
i called you out because you state your opinion on the flick by saying "it's not bad" then you start bashing it in terms of whether it stimulates intellectual thought or not. who ing cares. it's entertainment. a movie doesn't need to have a load of abstract pictures put into it to be great. if it makes u feel good, it's good. simple as that. don't need to complicate it. |
That's your own opinion. He is entitled his own as well.
I hate when movies give it all away, when there is no emotion, when it's just pure entertainement, that is what I consider boring. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by zany_dog
i called you out because you state your opinion on the flick by saying "it's not bad" then you start bashing it in terms of whether it stimulates intellectual thought or not. who ing cares. it's entertainment. a movie doesn't need to have a load of abstract pictures put into it to be great. if it makes u feel good, it's good. simple as that. don't need to complicate it. |
I still maintain it's not bad. It's not bad - as entertainment like you said. It is not bad in the same way as Rambo, Rocky, The Terminator, The Green Mile and countless other pieces of completely unsubtle entertainment that require you to turn your brain off before the start. Film is an artistic medium though, and as a piece of artistic expression the movie is quite mediocre. I don't like abstract pictures either. A good plot, a bit of subtlety, a few thoughtful dialogues can lift a film from mere entertainment to something great.
So yeah It is entertaining and a pretty cool movie... But "one of the greatest movies of all time"?... Sure these things are subjective but I don't really understand how someone could think that. |
|
|
| TeKnoHe@d2025 |
| Great film, my favorite as well. There is just something about the movie that is very chill...Frank Darabont (producer) films tend to have that quality ('The Majestic' and 'The Green Mile' to name a few more). |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
So yeah It is entertaining and a pretty cool movie... But "one of the greatest movies of all time"?... Sure these things are subjective but I don't really understand how someone could think that. |
Everyone is conscious that there is skill in art. Few take the time to consider that there is just as much skill neccesary to be in the audience.
When a movie is aimed at a mainstream audience then its storytelling also by definition must be made more broad and more obvious in order for the audience to follow along.
A common fallacy of skilled audiences is to dissmiss stories which are told in broad palettes (even though they often contain subtle strokes for them to appreciate).
To see Shawshank as a 'revenge' movie implies that you missed the story.
***
A related aside: I saw the Clive Barker film Nighbreed with a friend who isn't a skilled audience. When the townsfolk went to get the monsters he though they were the good guys because his limited audience skill didn't allow him to consider any other interpretation. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Everyone is conscious that there is skill in art. Few take the time to consider that there is just as much skill neccesary to be in the audience.
When a movie is aimed at a mainstream audience then its storytelling also by definition must be made more broad and more obvious in order for the audience to follow along.
A common fallacy of skilled audiences is to dissmiss stories which are told in broad palettes (even though they often contain subtle strokes for them to appreciate).
To see Shawshank as a 'revenge' movie implies that you missed the story.
|
I'll concede that it's more than a revenge story, much like The Count of Monte Cristo is more than a revenge story. The few pure revenge stories in film are in the action genre and are enjoyable on an even more basic level.
My point is that any film can be analysed to infinite depth... just a question of how deeply u want to go into it. That however does NOT mean that all films have infinite depth to them. Seriously in terms of cinematic, theatrical, or literary expression would you put this film in the same league as Richard III (Olivier and McKellan versions), the three colours trilogy, the great hitchfilms, Sergio Leone films, Any film by Kurosawa, Scorsese, Melville, Kieslowski, von Trier, Orson Welles, Kubrick, Polanski, Fellini, Lynch... I mean u could probably go on for three pages listing the greatest films and still not be thinking of Shawshank. I'm not saying it's a bad film, far from it - it's probably one of Hollywood's better offerings of late, but to say it's even in the same league as the greatest films of all time is surely an exaggeration. |
|
|
| zany_dog |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I'll concede that it's more than a revenge story, much like The Count of Monte Cristo is more than a revenge story. The few pure revenge stories in film are in the action genre and are enjoyable on an even more basic level.
My point is that any film can be analysed to infinite depth... just a question of how deeply u want to go into it. That however does NOT mean that all films have infinite depth to them. Seriously in terms of cinematic, theatrical, or literary expression would you put this film in the same league as Richard III (Olivier and McKellan versions), the three colours trilogy, the great hitchfilms, Sergio Leone films, Any film by Kurosawa, Scorsese, Melville, Kieslowski, von Trier, Orson Welles, Kubrick, Polanski, Fellini, Lynch... I mean u could probably go on for three pages listing the greatest films and still not be thinking of Shawshank. I'm not saying it's a bad film, far from it - it's probably one of Hollywood's better offerings of late, but to say it's even in the same league as the greatest films of all time is surely an exaggeration. |
Would you at least agree that there are some memorable characters in the movie? This is where SR really shines. The characters and the catchy dialogue. If a movie is memorable, it's pretty damn good, imo. Of course there are other things that also make movies stand out in terms of what topic they deal with, how the film is chopped, directing, production, etc. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I mean u could probably go on for three pages listing the greatest films and still not be thinking of Shawshank. I'm not saying it's a bad film, far from it - it's probably one of Hollywood's better offerings of late, but to say it's even in the same league as the greatest films of all time is surely an exaggeration. |
Is Shawshank a fantastic piece of cinema? No
Is Shawshank a great piece of storytelling? Yes
 Shawshank is a fantastic piece of cinema (it gets there through the backdoor :D) |
|
|
|
|
